In a world dominated by an absurd obsession with the trivial, and with the celebration of the merest whisper of the merest activity of such witless people - here is a story worth acknowledging.

Today was announced (and yesterday occurred) the death of an individual - Mikhail Kalashnikov (aged 94) - who had a genuinely transformational effect (yes, the exact extent of that remains debatable) world wide, with his invention, and design, and creation of the rifle which bears his name, the AK-47.

New to the forum, there are some interesting posts and I like responding in a positive manner if I can.

Click to expand...

Fair enough.

You mentioned that you had been wounded by this invention, and that you have used it; I have to assume therefore, that you may well have served in the armed forces. In any case, this makes any observations you might choose to make on the weapon (and its late inventor) of even greater relevance.

Well, some of the older hands have been known to refer newcomers to old threads as a way of discouraging them from starting new ones on a given topic.

If a poster wishes to post on something that is already being discussed elsewhere, why on earth not resurrect an older thread?

Though I will confess to some surprise at some of the resurrections of say, eight year old, and other threads of similar antiquity.

Fair enough.

You mentioned that you had been wounded by this invention, and that you have used it; I have to assume therefore, that you may well have served in the armed forces. In any case, this makes any observations you might choose to make on the weapon (and its late inventor) of even greater relevance.

Maybe my etiquette in bumping old and long dead threads where discussion has naturally come to a close wasn't subtle enough?

Click to expand...

And the point you are trying to make is what, exactly?

At the risk of repeating myself, when a newbie or recently joined member starts a thread on something which may have arisen before, or been discussed before, they are often berated and reprimanded and invited to trawl the search function and use/resurrect old threads rather than starting a new one.

Re discussions coming to a natural end, sometimes, someone has something valuable or interesting to add, especially if they have joined the forum recently and have not had an opportunity to post in the thread when it was in its initial incarnation and 'live', so to speak.

However, I will add that on a thread which was started with the intention of discussing the death of Mr Khalashnikov (and another started with the intention of discussing the death of Mr Mandela), that anyone who posts stating that they had used or been wounded by, the weapon invented by the former, or had the privilege and honour of meeting the latter has made what seems to me to have been a very relevant additional post.

Fascinating. Were these election related missions, or military monitoring missions?

And the point you are trying to make is what, exactly?

At the risk of repeating myself, when a newbie or recently joined member starts a thread on something which may have arisen before, or been discussed before, they are often berated and reprimanded and invited to trawl the search function and use/resurrect old threads rather than starting a new one.

Re discussions coming to a natural end, sometimes, someone has something valuable or interesting to add, especially if they have joined the forum recently and have not had an opportunity to post in the thread when it was in its initial incarnation and 'live', so to speak.

However, I will add that on a thread which was started with the intention of discussing the death of Mr Khalashnikov (and another started with the intention of discussing the death of Mr Mandela), that anyone who posts stating that they had used or been wounded by, the weapon invented by the former, or had the privilege and honour of meeting the latter has made what seems to me to have been a very relevant additional post.

Click to expand...

Somalia was a Chapter 7, we had 28,000 military. Liberia was an election/military observer mission when I was there. Sierra Leone and Rwanda was observer missions.

The AK is flimsy as hell. I know it works in many conditions but it's still a cheap, stamped-metal gun. Big round, but lower MV than the M4.

I knew a warrant officer who owned a Pedersen Rifle. Damn rare and worth a fortune.

Click to expand...

My understanding is that the AK47 would not be regarded as a high maintenance weapon; it is rugged - and was designed to be rugged - and can work in trying conditions (desert, mountains, hail, sleet, snow, jungle) in the hands of those who may not have been trained to the highest of standards, and who may not have access to the best equipped repair shops.

In other words, as the old slogan long identified with Apple used to say 'It Just Works' and that is what it does. This is a weapon that is rugged in challenging and testing hostile environments, - both physical and military - is known to be very reliable, and is highly forgiving in the hands of those who use it. Besides, it is relatively affordable. With such advantages, can one wonder that it is the weapon of choice for insurgent groups, and indeed, for some regular troops as well?

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.